Its a fair point I guess. But there is no self regulation in the software industry. There is no standard qualifications. The internet isn't regulated. There is no malpractice laws for code. These companies used this software as-is without warranty.
You could create laws to make people liable for the free code the provide. But they don't exist now. Im not sure how you could make it work.
We live in a new time now where the technology we use is so homogeneous, interconnected and fast that mistakes can cripple a large percent of the people on earth in a very short period of time. Even an incompetent doctor can only kill one patient at a time.
At some point laws will regulate things as important as ssl, but for now its still the wild west.
Programming is just breaking down a real world task into smaller and smaller parts until you can write code to achieve it. So all bugs seem trival in reflection because code is simple (single threaded anyhow:p).
To be fair though, this was part of the rfc, and is the sort of thing you write unit tests to catch. These sort of well defined algorithims are extremely unit testable. This is the way you test functionality and stop regression bugs.
Sure you could still miss it, its just most of our bugs don't cause such a huge pain in the ass for the internet.
Well, I would phrase it that, maths is internally consistent logical numeric operations.
Correct maths is always correct, does it reflect nature? Sure only experiment can tell.
This gets to the philosophy of maths, is maths "real". I think the best way I can think of it is.. if the universe worked by non internally consistant means it would not be stable, if the forces between particles didnt follow consistent logic, I cant see how they could exist. So it parallels math in having that constraint.
Particles are excitations of fields. There are many fields that permeate the universe. Fields have a quantized state at every point, everywhere. Due to the uncertainty principle we cannot know the precise value of say the momentum of that point in space (if we want to define no momentum as nothing). Therefore there is no "nothing". This has all come from rigorous theory confirmed by experiment.
Are these fields real? Do they exist everywhere? Does this hold outside our "universe" whatever that means, who knows, its just philosophy. All we know is what we can see by experiment.
Its unethical if you knowingly name someone you know isn't the person. Or claim with certainty you cant back up.
Outing someone without their permission is not unethical at all.
Perhaps if outing them only hurt them without any benefit to the public, maybe you can argue its unethical.. but its a dangerous position to claim the truth is unethical.
Since whoever created bitcoin is not literally seconds from being crushed by a government tank for their actions. Its hardly a fair comparison. If a journalist could never report on someone who didn't want to be reported on, you might as well end journalism and free speech. Let the journalists reputation live and die by their work. If they defame someone, their are legal means to have recourse. Any type of pre-emptive censorship is anathema to democracy and free speech.
Finding waste anywhere is easy. Its not unique to government There is no free market for the military. It makes no money. Unless you go back to the system of war and looting.
Building these kinds of machines is always going to cost a fortune. Even at 2000-3000 units, this isn't mass production. It also incorporates a lot of new tech which is hard to budget.
I'm all for cutting military spending but that will also cut jobs. I wonder what the jobs per million spent on the military is compared to other government spending.
With the Heavy you are right that it hasn't entered service. Though none of their products are vaporware. They have delivered.
Its valid logic to say any one launch maybe lucky, however launching something in to space is so complex that doing it once is a pretty strong indicator that you can do it again.
If the Falcon Heavy has one successful launch Arianespace will be really worried. Of course if SpaceX then lose the next 3 it will be a disaster. But I said before.. Arianespace would be counting on them to fail, if SpaceX doesn't then they are out of business.
But its more complex. What is being insured? The parts, labor.. design time? The cost of employing 100 people for another few years while its being rebuilt? What if you can't launch again because of time, not money?
That would almost never be true. The cost of launch is almost (probably always) a tiny part of the total cost of designing, building and launching something.
The launch might be $80m, but if you lose a $200m payload its not so good.
There is insurance which makes the cost analysis more complex, I'm not sure how that would factor in. However it would have to be far more reliable than 1/5 for 1/3 the cost.
Falcon 9 is cheaper and has been pretty successful.
If I was running the Ariane program I would be worried. You are betting on the Falcon 9 having failures. Otherwise you cannot compete for a large part of the market.
If the Heavy works, you are out of business. It might be FUD, but it is also true.
Slashdot Mirror
The company that will do it is most likely spacex. If they manage to make their rockets reusable, there might be no other launch companies left.
You cant be wrong quoting Feynman ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Who could add more?
Its a fair point I guess. But there is no self regulation in the software industry. There is no standard qualifications.
The internet isn't regulated. There is no malpractice laws for code. These companies used this software as-is without warranty.
You could create laws to make people liable for the free code the provide. But they don't exist now. Im not sure how you could make it work.
We live in a new time now where the technology we use is so homogeneous, interconnected and fast that mistakes can cripple a large percent of the people on earth in a very short period of time. Even an incompetent doctor can only kill one patient at a time.
At some point laws will regulate things as important as ssl, but for now its still the wild west.
Programming is just breaking down a real world task into smaller and smaller parts until you can write code to achieve it. :p).
So all bugs seem trival in reflection because code is simple (single threaded anyhow
To be fair though, this was part of the rfc, and is the sort of thing you write unit tests to catch. These sort of well defined algorithims are extremely unit testable. This is the way you test functionality and stop regression bugs.
Sure you could still miss it, its just most of our bugs don't cause such a huge pain in the ass for the internet.
Well, I would phrase it that, maths is internally consistent logical numeric operations.
Correct maths is always correct, does it reflect nature? Sure only experiment can tell.
This gets to the philosophy of maths, is maths "real". I think the best way I can think of it is.. if the universe worked by non internally consistant means it would not be stable, if the forces between particles didnt follow consistent logic, I cant see how they could exist. So it parallels math in having that constraint.
Particles are excitations of fields. There are many fields that permeate the universe. Fields have a quantized state at every point, everywhere.
Due to the uncertainty principle we cannot know the precise value of say the momentum of that point in space (if we want to define no momentum as nothing). Therefore there is no "nothing". This has all come from rigorous theory confirmed by experiment.
Are these fields real? Do they exist everywhere? Does this hold outside our "universe" whatever that means, who knows, its just philosophy. All we know is what we can see by experiment.
There are already liable and slander laws.
If you want to start to fine and jail people who say things you don't like, you have ended free speech and democracy.
Thats the beauty of freedom of the press, free speech, it doesn't matter what anyone thinks is "of value".
Once you define what is valuable, you create the avenue to suppress anything.
Depends when they cashed out. You would have to be an almost psychopath to still be holding all your bit coins at this point.
There has been so much fluctuation and uncertainty.
You also have to hope you aren't an american, because the fbi is likely to fuck you up on RICO charges once they find out who you are.
Eh, the creator/s of bitcoin didn't create cryptography in an afternoon.
Im no expert on bitcoin but its seems to be a protocol built on known cryptography, I don't see why one person couldn't have created it.
Try reading some published scientific papers, apparently they would blow your mind.
There is a right to free speech. I don't remember which part of the bill of rights is to be left alone without anyone in violation of free speech.
Unless the reporter was knowingly putting him in danger with false information, nothing wrong has been done.
And as you mention.. if the person was defamed. There is legal recourse.
Its unethical if you knowingly name someone you know isn't the person. Or claim with certainty you cant back up.
Outing someone without their permission is not unethical at all.
Perhaps if outing them only hurt them without any benefit to the public, maybe you can argue its unethical.. but its a dangerous position to claim the truth is unethical.
Since whoever created bitcoin is not literally seconds from being crushed by a government tank for their actions. Its hardly a fair comparison.
If a journalist could never report on someone who didn't want to be reported on, you might as well end journalism and free speech.
Let the journalists reputation live and die by their work. If they defame someone, their are legal means to have recourse.
Any type of pre-emptive censorship is anathema to democracy and free speech.
I don't get sperm donation
On the one hand
This is old news.
It doesn't violate the uncertainty principle.
You're fucked :D
I wouldnt count on it :)
Finding waste anywhere is easy. Its not unique to government
There is no free market for the military. It makes no money. Unless you go back to the system of war and looting.
Depends how you define readiness.
But looking at the sizes of civilian contracts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_contractor) I doubt it.
Building these kinds of machines is always going to cost a fortune. Even at 2000-3000 units, this isn't mass production. It also incorporates a lot of new tech which is hard to budget.
I'm all for cutting military spending but that will also cut jobs. I wonder what the jobs per million spent on the military is compared to other government spending.
The F-18 per unit cost is $29-57 million in 2006 dollars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F/A-18_Hornet)
Which is a small fraction of the F-35 cost. So I dont see how they can be saving money.
I dont really follow your logic. Replacing a plane is a total loss on the old plane. So you can't possibly save money.
With the Heavy you are right that it hasn't entered service.
Though none of their products are vaporware. They have delivered.
Its valid logic to say any one launch maybe lucky, however launching something in to space is so complex that doing it once is a pretty strong indicator that you can do it again.
If the Falcon Heavy has one successful launch Arianespace will be really worried. Of course if SpaceX then lose the next 3 it will be a disaster. But I said before.. Arianespace would be counting on them to fail, if SpaceX doesn't then they are out of business.
On the face of it, yes insurance is easy.
But its more complex. What is being insured? The parts, labor.. design time?
The cost of employing 100 people for another few years while its being rebuilt?
What if you can't launch again because of time, not money?
That would almost never be true.
The cost of launch is almost (probably always) a tiny part of the total cost of designing, building and launching something.
The launch might be $80m, but if you lose a $200m payload its not so good.
There is insurance which makes the cost analysis more complex, I'm not sure how that would factor in. However it would have to be far more reliable than 1/5 for 1/3 the cost.
Falcon 9 is cheaper and has been pretty successful.
If I was running the Ariane program I would be worried. You are betting on the Falcon 9 having failures. Otherwise you cannot compete for a large part of the market.
If the Heavy works, you are out of business. It might be FUD, but it is also true.